Obama Eigibility Challenged In Florida Court – By Sheriff Joe
photo cross-posted from ObamaReleaseYourRecords blog
WND EXCLUSIVE
Sheriff Joe challenges eligibility in Florida
Judge also wants White House to back its definition of natural-born citizen
WHOOP!
Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse lead investigator have submitted sworn affidavits in a Florida case challenging President Obama’s eligibility for the election ballot of the crucial swing-state that decided the 2000 presidential election.
Significantly, Judge Terry Lewis in Leon County – known for his rulings in the Bush v. Gore case at the center of the 2000 contested election – has confronted the White House for failing to support its claim that the term “natural born citizen” in the U.S. Constitution means something other than the offspring of two American citizens.
Lewis has scheduled a hearing for Monday at 9 a.m. at the Leon County Courthouse in Tallahassee to hear the Obama team’s motion to dismiss the case and determine whether it should go forward with discovery.
Affidavits from Arpaio, Cold Case Posse lead investigator Mike Zullo and WND author and senior reporter Jerome Corsi have been filed ahead of the hearing. The briefs support the complaint’s charge that there is evidence Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the White House and, therefore, original documentation is needed to determine whether he should be on the ballot.
Attorney Larry Klayman, founder of the Washington, D.C., watchdogs Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, is representing a registered member of the Democratic Party, Michael Voeltz, who has filed the complaint as a Florida voter. Klayman’s work is supported by the non-profit ConstitutionActionFund.org.
Klayman told WND today that unlike other Obama eligibility cases, this case “likely will go the distance” because of the strength of Florida law, which provides voters with the right to challenge a candidate’s eligibility.
“The judge must make a decision based on eligibility,” Klayman explained. “He can’t sidestep it as judges in other states have attempted to do.”
BALANCE OF ARTICLE AT PINK LINK
My Very Own Point of View 
“…has confronted the White House for failing to support its claim that the term “natural born citizen” in the U.S. Constitution means something other than the offspring of two American citizens.”
Where is this information coming from? Do you see this case as turning out any differently than others? (Thanks for getting my post name fixed the last time I was here.)
No Charo, it was the first I had heard that. I’ll try and look around today to see what the deal on that is.
As far as turning out differently, wellllllllll, I will have to admit that my concern with any and every Judge now, is that they lean heavily on the actions of the Judges that have preceded them in this eligibility issue. Especially now when the election is so close, and it does seem as though Mitt has a fighting chance. Judge might think, “I’m not going to get tied up in all of this, it can all be worked out in the future after obama is gone.” Then he’ll slap a “no standing” decision on it and wash his hands of the thing.
Perhaps Sheriff Joe’s involvement may help though. Frankly there should be no reason why a court won’t make a decision on this other than – what they call in my husbands line of work – professional courtesy. Power and influence make very strong persuasive arguments to Judges that they should just brush it all aside. And if all of the other Judges have brushed it aside………
We NEED some period writings that define the meaning of nbC with no wiggle room. That will have real weight.
It is unbelievable (well, not really) that the Supreme Court would not have taken a case to establish the definition, either way. The issue is going to arise with Rubio someday; you know he has high aspirations, Jindal or some unknown.
grammar was horrible above but you get the point
It’s OK, I’m not a grammar cop. 🙂
***DELETED BILE***
I shall buy popcorn cause this to me, is always fun to watch.
________________________________________________________________
LADYSFOREST SEZ: You are ignorant. Your ignorance makes of you a slave. A slave unable to realize it’s own entrapment.
The truth is that regardless of the outcome of the pursuit to establish obama’s eligibility per Article II, he will be VOTED out of office in 146 short days.
In your own words: “I shall buy popcorn”. The only thing more thoroughly satisfying will the utter demoralization of the useful brainwashed cellar brats, yourself for example, wailing and weeping and melting down all over themselves.
Sweet sweet days to come.
The definition of NBC was addressed in Minor v. Happersett, which unanimously defined it as “all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.” It recognized that by law, the children of aliens could NOT become citizens until their fathers naturalized. There was no exception to make such children citizens at birth … and if it was somehow recognized, the court said there was doubts about such citizenship. The Wong Kim Ark decision, some 20 years later, cited Minor’s definition of NBC and respected it, using DIFFERENT criteria and terminology to make birth citizens through the 14th amendment. It said the 14th amendment did NOT define natural-born citizenship. Then, almost 20 years later again, the Supreme Court said:
“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827. ”
The court specifically cites a legal precedent from Minor and NOT from Wong Kim Ark, meaning the court did NOT recognize 14th amendment citizenship by birth as being the same thing as a “native citizen” … the only definition in Minor for natives is “all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.” The Minor decision and definition is THE legal precedent for defining NBC. Obama is not and cannot be a natural-born citizen.
Just so!
Amen!
Just watched the hearing. This judge, IMO, will kick the can down the road. His reasoning is that Obama is not the nominee. That is done at the DNC convention and that hasn’t happened yet.
Not very surprised. Hot potato like this – he’d rather wait to see if obama is voted out. If not, then he’ll claim the citizens don’t have standing. The other judges have set the precedence, and this judge will take advantage of that if he doesn’t want to act.
Did anything really interesting happen?
It was pretty boring but the judge asked a few dumb questions, like “what if the father dies before the child is born?” And “what about artificial insemination?” I was like oh brother.
Artifrickenficial insemination? I think I know what he is doing. It is a preview of the possible arguments that can be made by “innocents” to cloud the issue. In both of those cases it depends on the citizenship of the parents, just as it would under ANY circumstance. Building sympathy or creating a cloud would never change the fact of the birth circumstance. The attorney should have stated that over and over – simply and with no additional explanation or confusion. Two US citizens, on US soil. If a child’s father died before it was born, but was a US citizen (as well as the Mom) baby is nbC. The qualifying parental requirements happened at the moment of conception. nbC doesn’t happen after the child is born. There is no retro nbC, or honorary nbC (McCain). If the US citizen mom remarries a foreign national, and moves off US soil for a time (as happened to obama) BUT the childs natural father had been a US citizen, the baby is a nbC – unless the child gives up their US citizenship when old enough to do so.
I’m surprised that the judge didn’t bring up a “bastard” birth where the mother claimed to have no knowledge of the true father.
I HOPE the attorney presented the OFA and FactCheck/Fight The Smears declaration about obama being a FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT citizen. Additionally a dual citizen born a subject to Britain through his Father.
I think the “argument” the obama attorneys put forward is thin and lazy. I believe it shows that they are convinced that the ruling will go against “birthers” no matter what.
The attorney did say that the term “born of” is a process and not a moment.
Could you please expand on that a little for me? I can’t get a video to play for some reason.
Technically, Obama — even if he could legally prove he was born in the United States — would NOT be a 14th amendment citizen, because according to the Wong Kim Ark decision, this requires the parents to have permanent residence and domicil to satisfy the subject clause. Obama’s mama’s permanent residence became her Kenyan husband’s permanent residence upon their marriage.
It looks like the comment thread is closed on the most recent post. This is off topic in any case:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/jun/19/gary-kreep-clinches-win-for-judge/
Wow on the Kreep thingy! And I’ll look into the comment problem – I don’t have any in moderation, so they may be getting hijacked – I wondered why there were ZERO comments on that topic, including obots.
There is no Enter Your Comment box.
weird. I’ll try to fix it again.
Whoa! I just checked it without signing in (admin) and not only is there no box to comment in, there is a fricken ADVERTISEMENT where the comment box should be. WordPress must be having issues. I’ve never had ads before – that I’m aware of.
Fixed the comment function. It was easy enough, but I have NO IDEA how that box got UNCHECKED for the post. I have never once scrolled down to where the “option” is, not once in all the nearly 300 posts I’ve done. Didn’t even know it was there of that it could be done! Huh. Now I have to find out about this advertisement crap – that will take longer.
Thanks- I enjoy your blog. I like your tell it like it is approach.
OMG and LOL – I always try so hard to be diplomatic! I really do reign myself in so I don’t offend (too much).
Thank you charo.